Retention Forces of Implant-Supported Single Crowns and Fixed Dental Prostheses after Cementation: An In-Vitro Study

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate three different cements for their suitability to provide semi-permanent cementation, and to compare the retention forces of implant-supported single crowns (SC) and three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP) luted with these cements. Twenty-four methacrylate models were supplied with three implants/abutments each to simulate the condition of SCs/FDPs. Cobalt-chromium frameworks were fabricated, sandblasted (Al2O3/50 µm/0.2 MPa) then cemented with glass-ionomer (KTC), polycarboxylate (DUR) or self-adhesive resin cement (RXU). Specimens were stored in a saline-solution (NaCl/37 °C/24 h) or subjected to thermocycling. A universal testing machine and a pull-off device were used to remove the copings. The multi-factor ANOVA showed that the retention force differed significantly among all cements for the SCs after NaCl storage (p < 0.05). Mean retention forces (in Newtons) after NaCl storage were (SCs/FDPs): KTC 170/352, DUR 409/406, RXU 265/426, and after thermocycling (SCs/FDPs): KTC 156/262, DUR 306/380, RXU 494/508. FDPs showed higher retention values in comparison to SCs. For SCs, artificial aging with thermocycling resulted in a significant retention increase for RXU, whereas the retention of KTC and DUR was decreased. Glass ionomer can be used as a semi-permanent cement for both SCs and FDPs. Polycarboxylate cement is considered semi-permanent after one year of aging.

Keywords

• implant-supported restoration
• cement
• retention
• fixed dental prosthesis
• retrievability